CalgaryNEXT project on pause, says Ken King

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Poster

Idea

How about financing he entire project with a "ticket tax"?

Hmmmm, sounds like reinvesting their profits for something that benefits their bottom line. Kinda like how every other business finances expansion!

I see no reason for funding to come from anyone but the owners of a business and their customers. This is not a public need and therefore shouldn't have anything to do with with taxpayers money.

Keb King is a snake oil salesman and I don't want a single penny of my taxes going to this.

BARF when he trotted out the line that this was a city owned building and belonged to the tax payers. Well ya, so they could walk away from it in 25 years and extort us for another new facility all while not having to pay any property tax!

Sorry bud, build your own white elephant if it's such a a good idea.

Hey bud,

I have no idea why you quoted me.

I am one of the strongest people against CalgaryNEXT, see my posts.

My point was only that a ticket tax, minus financing fees paid by the City, is indeed a 100% owner contribution.

Yet, despite quoting me and my post being as straight forward as one can get, you didn't argue against that at all.

[Poster]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Hey bud,

I have no idea why you quoted me.

I am one of the strongest people against CalgaryNEXT, see my posts.

My point was only that a ticket tax, minus financing fees paid by the City, is indeed a 100% owner contribution.

Yet, despite quoting me and my post being as straight forward as one can get, you didn't argue against that at all.

Sorry if it was confusing, I was expanding on your point. The "hey bud" was directed to Ken King, not you.

Merry Christmas!

[powderjunkie]

Arguing about the ticket tax is just stupid semantics...but I'll play too. I would certainly accept that it essentially comes from the owners side, but I think it's too simplistic to simply evaluate it as city vs. owners (and if you do want to keep it that simple, at least evaluate both the costs and the benefits to each side).

The ticket tax is most accurately a user fee. It is mostly redirected revenue, but to say that every penny of a $xx.xx ticket fee would otherwise be tacked onto the face value of a ticket. Supply and demand largely drive ticket prices, but they are not the only factors. It is a preferable set up for both general public perception and consumer behaviour. A $99 face value + $20 ticket tax + $13 in other fees + GST is going to sell more than a $135 all-in ticket. Remember, most people buy tickets in pairs or 4s, so getting an initial purchase decision at a lower cost is huge.

I do think a ticket tax is the best way to fund this project, and should be the largest possible proportion. I also think it's too simplistic to consider it all money right out of the owners' pockets.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The ticket tax is most accurately a user fee.

I do think a ticket tax is the best way to fund this project, and should be the largest possible proportion. I also think it's too simplistic to consider it all money right out of the owners' pockets.

I strongly disagree, a user fee is a 100% owner contribution.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

I strongly disagree, a user fee is a 100% owner contribution.

Only if you want to have really broad definition of contribute.

[GGG]

Nm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Arguing about the ticket tax is just stupid semantics...but I'll play too. I would certainly accept that it essentially comes from the owners side, but I think it's too simplistic to simply evaluate it as city vs. owners (and if you do want to keep it that simple, at least evaluate both the costs and the benefits to each side).

The ticket tax is most accurately a user fee. It is mostly redirected revenue, but to say that every penny of a $xx.xx ticket fee would otherwise be tacked onto the face value of a ticket. Supply and demand largely drive ticket prices, but they are not the only factors. It is a preferable set up for both general public perception and consumer behaviour. A $99 face value + $20 ticket tax + $13 in other fees + GST is going to sell more than a $135 all-in ticket. Remember, most people buy tickets in pairs or 4s, so getting an initial purchase decision at a lower cost is huge.

I do think a ticket tax is the best way to fund this project, and should be the largest possible proportion. I also think it's too simplistic to consider it all money right out of the owners' pockets.

So if the owners funded the entire ticket tax amount up front as an owner contribution and then decided as part of the marketing of a new arena they would have a price of tickets and an arena surcharge so that people don't get sticker shock would that be a user fee?

[Northendzone]

Lots of slagging on ken king here, and although he is the face of this project, he s likely making decisions as part of a larger strategic group making decisions as a business would.

It seems unlikely to me that KK is in a room by himself making decions based on what he wants to do.

[jayswin]

Not to mention he would have likely been turfed a long time ago if ownership thought the same as fans. I get it, from the perspective of a fan it looks horrible, but from the perspective of ownership he's likely just carrying out a bunch of calculated moves on their behalf.

I know Bunk dismissed the idea of Plan A being over ambitious and not likely to be approved so that plan B would be easier to swallow as "silly", but I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least some truth to the idea.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Not to mention he would have likely been turfed a long time ago if ownership thought the same as fans. I get it, from the perspective of a fan it looks horrible, but from the perspective of ownership he's likely just carrying out a bunch of calculated moves on their behalf.

I know Bunk dismissed the idea of Plan A being over ambitious and not likely to be approved so that plan B would be easier to swallow as "silly", but I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least some truth to the idea.

I think CSEC put out Plan A just as an hail mary attempt since it would work out for them better, but honestly didn't have expectations for it to pass and Plan B was the realistic option to pass.

[Freeway]

I honestly think that CSEC thought that CalgaryNEXT was a solution to many of the problems that the city (and also CSEC) faced. Unfortunately, I think they dramatically under-estimated the costs of development and over-estimated the city's ability to kick in funds AND the public's willingness to do so.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by New Era

Then why do you follow sports at all? Because you following sports, supporting the team, supporting advertisers, and supporting the broadcasters, is lining the pockets of millionaires/billionaires. Of the stupid arguments presented, this was the ultimate stupid argument of arguments.

Big difference between supporting a team and supporting a new arena when they have a perfectly adequate arena to play in now.

[flamesforcup]

There are people in winter who can't afford rent or clothing yet billionaires can get their big fancy arenas payed for by our taxes. This is why capitalism sucks for the average joe

[Stay Golden]

Laughable for KK to say that project is on pause when it was never a reality in the first place. KK could have said we building under the Bow River and it would make as much sense as wanting to build a new Arena on contaminated land.
Could you imagine if a NHL team launched a project to build on contaminated land that had no definate time line of how many years could pass that it would even be possible to begin the enviromental clean up. That at some infinate later date maybe that NHL team might have a chance to build in the future. Then actually in spite of that still roll that location as the future build site. That would be never happen right(?) No NHL ownership would have the brainfart to call that their Project NEXT right lmao. Oh Ken King you silly man.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I honestly think that CSEC thought that CalgaryNEXT was a solution to many of the problems that the city (and also CSEC) faced. Unfortunately, I think they dramatically under-estimated the costs of development and over-estimated the city's ability to kick in funds AND the public's willingness to do so.

That is where they failed, stakeholder engagement. As said before by many here, CSEC not approaching the city early to get buy in I think was a fatal mistake. People who work in business development get that. The key is to socialize the idea early and often subtilely with the right people. Make it their idea where they see benefit. Then when timing is right partner with them to sell it up the chain, using them as the primary communicator for the project.

It is how successful projects work. If KK walked out with polished drawings and Nenshi (as an extension of council) smiling right by him I bet shovels are in the ground now. Instead it appears it was a case of hit em with wow and watch them come (aka the Hail Mary). Very high risk.

In fact I think they made a Simpsons about that same business move...something monorail something.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Laughable for KK to say that project is on pause when it was never a reality in the first place. KK could have said we building under the Bow River and it would make as much sense as wanting to build a new Arena on contaminated land.
Could you imagine if a NHL team launched a project to build on contaminated land that had no definate time line of how many years could pass that it would even be possible to begin the enviromental clean up. That at some infinate later date maybe that NHL team might have a chance to build in the future. Then actually in spite of that still roll that location as the future build site. That would be never happen right(?) No NHL ownership would have the brainfart to call that their Project NEXT right lmao. Oh Ken King you silly man.

I don't have an issue with the goal of coming up with a plan to develop something to resolve the contaminated land. It needs to happen at some point. So that seemed valid.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Big difference between supporting a team and supporting a new arena when they have a perfectly adequate arena to play in now.

Except the Saddledome is not perfectly adequate. You need to get out and see some events in other arenas. The Saddledome isn't a dump, but it is sorely lacking in comparison to other facilities. I'd put it on the bottom of the list for Canadian facilities and in the bottom five in the NHL. The Saddledome and the whole Stampede grounds is sub standard. Calgary can do much better.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't have an issue with the goal of coming up with a plan to develop something to resolve the contaminated land. It needs to happen at some point. So that seemed valid.

It was a losing proposal that never had legs.
KK should just admit this is DOA instead of trying to a snow everyone by saying is on "pause". Snake oil salesman.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except the Saddledome is not perfectly adequate. You need to get out and see some events in other arenas. The Saddledome isn't a dump, but it is sorely lacking in comparison to other facilities. I'd put it on the bottom of the list for Canadian facilities and in the bottom five in the NHL. The Saddledome and the whole Stampede grounds is sub standard. Calgary can do much better.

Well there are different ways to define adequate. Not as nice as your neighbor's arena isn't the same as inadequate.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by flamesforcup

There are people in winter who can't afford rent or clothing yet billionaires can get their big fancy arenas payed for by our taxes. This is why capitalism sucks for the average joe

That has nothing to do with capitalism.

However, there is a wonderful alternative to capitalism. There are no billionaires, the fancy arenas get built by the government for propaganda purposes, and while everybody can afford rent and clothing, there isn't enough of either to go around because the whole economy is permanently in the toilet. You're perfectly welcome to go and live in one of the few countries that still do it that way.